Continued from here
There was no fine for striking the mother in hebraic law at that point, any more than there would be for say striking a goat, a cow or a tent, unless you caused irreparable damage. That's religious folks for ya I guess.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make I'm afraid. This (the passage from Exodus) IS Hebraic law. It, in and of itself, is the relevant part of Hebraw law.
It seems like you're - to draw an analogy - looking at the legal code of a country, seeing that there's a punishment for murder in the section devoted to murder and then saying "well, there's nothing about murder in this legal code." It is literally the part you're reading.
We are discussing laws laid down by Moses, a Hebrew man living some 2500 years before there was a Christianity. It means exactly the same then as it does now.
I couldn't disagree more. I'm in the UK. We won the American War of Independance and got to not be responsible for the US any more. But when they left we had the same legal code. However, case law diverges from that point (leaving aside the fact that we've both introduced new law.) While, IIRC, there is a premise in US law that UK case law applies prior to a certain date that needn't be the case.
What it meant when written is not relevant, just as downloading music can be prosecuted under laws about theft. Its what the divergent groups using it apply to it that matters, in my opinion.
See, and here is the main issue with Christians. They keep referring to the bible like it was the word of some almighty being or something. While in fact it was written by a lot of old men, and even women thousands of years ago. Then as soon as somebody points out that their bigoted views aren't supported by that book, they suddenly start blaming someone explaining it incorrectly, rather than accepting their views might be wrong.
It seems like you're in danger of tying yourself in knots a little here. I suspect I'm not understanding you correctly.
Talking about biblical literalists (which I assume we are?). If your belief is that an anti-abortion stance isn't developed from Christianity then where does it come from? The standard opinion - I'm not saying its yours, just that it appears to be common - is that biblical literalists are using the out of date precepts of an old book and trying to apply it to the modern world. Your argument seems to be the inverse of that - that they have bigoted views and are twisting the Bible to support them.
Why, then, do they have those bigoted views? Why on earth are they opposed to abortion?
Again. Any view contrary to my point would be based on the assumption that striking a woman would be a fineable offense in Moses' time, which it wasn't. Therefor, the mention of a fine implies irreparable damage to the property of the husband.
My fault for making the same point twice. This is addressed above.
"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and the fruit of her womb comes out but there is no misfortune then..."
Sure, I've cherry picked the translation a little but its valid. I don't see how you can categorically state that it is about a miscarriage. Sure, many people before thought it was. *shrug* Many people before may well have been wrong.
EDIT: Meaning chaning typo. "Womb" in the sentence at the end beginning "If people are fighting..." originally read "woman"